Why is there some sort of attitude on this forum against talking about anything remotely controversial?

Don't see what that's got to do with my post, tbh. Don't give a crap about the controversy, just don't see why a separate thread needs to be made when people are saying the same stuff in the tour thread.

Strauss's catch looked really horrible, definitely closed his fingers around the ball after it had hit the ground.. You can't as a batsman ask the fielder if he caught the ball, because I don't think the fielder can always be sure.. What happened to the benifit of the doubt going to the batsman during 50/50 calls?

Batsmen get far too much in this day and age - I'm quite happy with the benefit of the doubt going to the fielder, especially on a camera image. If it's clearly bounced, yeah, sure, give it n\o, but IMO unless there's clear evidence it hasn't then it should be given out.

Don't see what that's got to do with my post, tbh. Don't give a crap about the controversy, just don't see why a separate thread needs to be made when people are saying the same stuff in the tour thread.

Because people are saying 1,000,001 other things in the match thread, which goes at about 50 posts per minute when a game's on, and 90 posts per minute in the eventuality of that sort of scandal. All of which means not even close to all posts on the matter are read, and the ones that make important points (like, well, yes, mine) are easily missed.

Hence, I feel a separate thread is appropos, and would've been distinctly displeased at any mod who elected to close this.

And this stuff happens, the umpires got it wrong, but after 5 minutes of anger I'm over it and certainly won't be bringing it up in four years time (like some english supporters seem to do with obscure happennings) or advocating the team pack up and go home (like one certain team likes to do when decisions go against them).

No-one threatened to go home because Umpiring decisions went against them. And whether it's 5 minutes ago, 4 years ago or 2 centuries ago, what happened happened, and if something is being discussed then those matters are going to be brought up whenever the related matters are under discussion.

Because people are saying 1,000,001 other things in the match thread, which goes at about 50 posts per minute when a game's on, and 90 posts per minute in the eventuality of that sort of scandal. All of which means not even close to all posts on the matter are read, and the ones that make important points (like, well, yes, mine) are easily missed.

TBF, zaremba made it. It's harder for people to ignore if it's in a separate thread TBH. Instead you have to think a bit harder to justify your spontaneous instinctive impression, a la Fuller and McNamara.

TBF, zaremba made it. It's harder for people to ignore if it's in a separate thread TBH. Instead you have to think a bit harder to justify your spontaneous instinctive impression, a la Fuller and McNamara.

Yeah, the man is an absolutely terrible liar. Did no-one see him trying to explain how Jimmy spilt drink on his gloves and they had to send out another pair? Was a hilariously bad cover-up.

Lol yeah, make Swann captain then we won't have any of this type of rubbish! Pisses me off when captains try to be PR men, just tell the truth and leave the bull**** to the people who are paid to deal with it.